Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It could be that or it could be nothing. And we have no way to prove one way or the other without access to the agent logs right?

This reminds me of the plot of Hot Fuzz where the officer comes up with a grand narrative of what's was happening but the truth was such a mundane simple thing.

Short of OpenAI, or the agents themselves, telling the truth, we have no way of knowing what's real so let's not get carried away by grand narratives

 help



> it could be nothing.

Well... no, it won't be nothing - it will be something. And I'm all ears for a plausible explanation, so fire away.

All we do know is that in other situations, agents did use it to communicate. So that's not a grand narrative, right? It's already been seen behavior.

So what do you think explains it, besides the already seen and verified explanation?

reply


My specific contention is on trying to ascribe intention on what looks like gibberish.

> Well... no, it won't be nothing - it will be something. And I'm all ears for a plausible explanation, so fire away.

I'm just stating the null hypothesis that it's nothing. Especially since the agents were talking in clear english before and exchanging ideas

reply


So you think there is no reason they did it?

I have never seen an agent perform an action repeatedly/persistently for no reason. Have you?

reply




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: